Talk:The Man Who Wasn't There

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Black and White

It says in the first paragraph of the Story section that "All of the action takes place in and around Santa Rosa, California in approximately 1949, and gets much of its period feel from being filmed in black and white." But it's not filmed in black and white. It's color, albeit muted tones.

Noooo.... it's black and white. Granted, the movie was filmed in color and then PRINTED on high contrast b/w stock, but the result is that the movie is black and white, not muted color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.111.63.98 (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Smoking

I don't believe the bits about smoking. They beg for, if not demand, qualification and/or proof. Koyaanis Qatsi 20:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Surely you remember smoking being present in the film itself. As for the criticism, I read it in a print article, the Star Tribune as I recall, though perhaps it was in a syndicated column there or in a news weekly. Forgive my memory, obviously it was some time ago as it was contemporaneous with the film's release. I can look for them.

By the way, I enjoyed the film considerably, though I could have done without the UFOs.

Yes, I remember the smoking, but I doubt the statement about smoking in film being in decline and then taking off again. It needs a range of dates first, and then a comprehensive study proving it so. I doubt the first half of the statement--the decline--because it's based on a perception and not a study, and also doesn't specify English-language films, or U.S. films, or British films, and I'm it sure doesn't take into account films made in Chinese, Russian, or Bengali. Similarly, the statement doesn't take into account even its own Anglocentric history: U.S., Canadian, and British films of the 1920s and 1930s, when it was tres chic for women to smoke--nor does it take into account the earlier noir films where many of the flawed protagonists would smoke, sometimes while also drinking. Maybe smoking in English-language film is on the increase, but first I'd like to know from what point (e.g. since 1983), and second I'd like to see the study proving it so. I'm sure that there isn't one.
As for the UFOs, the fictional Kenneth Loring (on the commentary track on the Blood Simple DVD) commented about Blood Simple that it was "crack storytelling," "no spaceships necessary."  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 21:09, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Here's what I found.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/DailyNews/smoking_movies020119.html

http://www.no-smoking.org/dec01/12-27-01-1.html

http://thatsrich.com/smokingkills.htm

It's no big deal to me, just an interesting anecdote about the place the film has in the history of cinema. Take it out if you like.

Kat 21:16, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

From the article:

The film received generally positive reviews when released, though the film was cited as one of the most obvious examples of the growing presence of cigarette smoking in cinema; 2001 was the year when the downward trend on portrayal of smoking in cinema was reversed.
This article mentions that James Glantz, the anti-smoking crusader who made the study, took a "random sampling of five of the 20 top-grossing films from each year," which tells me all I need to know about Glantz's study's reliability. Furthermore, his statement "people who smoke in the real world tend to be poor, poorly educated people" tells me most of what I need to know about his ability to put aside his agenda. Numbers, Mr. Glantz, facts, verifiability. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:30, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think I'll concede at this point. Kat 21:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
The thing that irritates me is that I agree with Glantz that smoking in U.S. film may be on the rise since the 1970s--but that I wish he'd do some solid research before saying so. As it is, his study wouldn't even look very promising as preliminary research to submit along with a grant proposal. At the very least, he could have watched all of the top 20 grossing films each year--it's not that hard, and they're generally good films. But even that would not be so good, as it doesn't examine all films, and therein his bias is revealed: even without reading about Glantz himself I would have known that Glantz meant to say that the appearance of smoking in films causes children to smoke, since he's only examining popular films, and not the tanks like Ishtar. <POV ramblings>And from there I infer that Glantz is one of those irritating jerks who decides that it's ok to interfere with someone else's freedom of speech--and, by extension, to disprove their own belief in democracy, since it requires freedom of speech--because Think Of The Children, when a better option would be to speak to his children frankly to give them a wide enough framework to make an educated decision. And I don't like smoking. As if the anti-smoking camp needed their own version of Michael Moore....</POV ramblings> Koyaanis Qatsi 22:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I'll send you some cigars in an effort to show an alternate POV on smoking... If not Glantz then some of the others claimed some sort of grand conspiracy where hollywood producers and directors were placing cigarettes in films in exchange for--who knows?--a third round draft pick? Cuban rum? Some other form of contraband? Money? Mind you, there's no evidence for any of this, but that doesn't stop the tabliods and their toadies.

[edit] Cinematographic style

I just took out the bit about the rotating cut--I just started the film again and the first 40 transitions are all straight cuts--not even a dissolve. If you meant clock wipes, e.g. the kind of cut frequently used in Star Wars, you are wrong. I'll watch the film again at some point but I've already seen it several times, and I don't believe it. Perhaps you're thinking of a)the hubcap after the accident, b) the UFO it turns into in Billy Bob's character's dream, or c) the stethoscope he wakes up to.

I seem to recall that starting with the hubcap after the accident, there was a growing use of unusual cuts. I've only seen the film once, in a theater, since I don't have a TV or VCR, so feel free to fix my comments. I mainly felt the need to weigh in since your writeup hadn't made mention of either the smoking or the black- and white filming, both of which are, to me, important elements of what the film is. The other comments came to me as I was writing.
They are important elements; thanks for mentioning them.  :-)

Also, I'd like to know what you mean by The cinematography is straightforward and traditional. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:23, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well, how would you characterize it? It's not filmed in scope. There are few unusual visual effects or camera angles. There is none of the radical perspective that comes with the camera right close to the subject with a short lens, or with the camera a good distance away with a long lens. There isn't really even much follow-focus or zoom shooting. The lighting is textbook, for black and white. That is, a little harder light than would be typical for color, but not by much; with the usual sort of quarter-light setup. Very well done, mind you, just done in a way that doesn't draw attention to itself. Kat 21:45, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Could you say that instead? I had no idea of whether you were talking about lensing, depth of field, etc. Now that you mention it, you're right--the film, visually, looks very much like a film noir from the late 1940s and early 1950s--the lenses tend towards the normal, the depth of field is long, the cameras tend to be from eye level. Certainly none of the long lenses that the Coens favored early in their career (thinking here of Blood Simple and Raising Arizona) and not many of the extreme angles used in films like Raising Arizona and The Hudsucker Proxy. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

By the way, do we have a page on the film that you take your name from? I couldn't find it.

It's at Koyaanisqatsi.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 21:52, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The additions look good, thanks. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Structure

I feel that the detailed plot description after the spoilers warning is a wee bit superflous - the prior section is a perfectly comprehensive discussion of the film. If you want to know the exact plot rent it out or buy it (Only £4.99 at HMV, fellow brits!). Do others agree?

No, I like the detailed synopsis, although it has now been fused together with the outline formerly contained in the analytical section, so that all plot details are below the spoiler warning. Ellsworth 17:05, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I might get flayed alive for asking this, but can anyone say what the meaning or relevance of the film's title? It's been a while since I watched it, and I came to this article hoping to find out.--81.179.91.108 22:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See Existentialism. Although the influence of Camus is noted in this article, I think someone with a background in philosophy should take a crack at analyzing the existential elements of the film. Also, it would be great to see a section about how this movie fits in with the Coens' complete body of work and also what was the critical and audience response. Thanks! 69.231.194.152 18:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Without consulting philosophy texts or Coen precedents, I can say that, for me, the film's title is pivotal. During most of the movie, Ed can't make others acknowledge his existence, hence he is "The Man Who Wasn't There." He can do anything including killing a man and still nobody acknowledges or listens to him. Then he reaches out and helps the teenage girl. At that moment, he becomes "There": As soon as she acknowledges him (makes a pass at him), external effects descend on him, starting with the car accident. Yet there is a measure of redemption here. At the beginning of the film we see Ed's unbearable internal strife, through the close depiction of sharp scissors etc pointed at the viewer's eyes. By the end, he is calm and reconciled to his fate: All the internal knives have gone to the outside, where they don't bother him anymore.12.26.40.50 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Stranger

I tagged the comparison to Camus's The Stranger, not because I disagree, but because it's original research. I think this claim, and the article as a whole, would benefit from a link to a site comparing the two. Cheesechimp 09:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)